DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 21-23, 25 and 26. No claims have been added. Claims 4 and 24 have been canceled. Claims 14-20 were canceled prior to previous office action. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-13, 21-23 and 25-27 remain pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 22 January 2026 with respect to
double patenting rejection,
rejection to claims 1-13 and 21-27 under U.S.C. § 101,
rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 21, 23, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) by He et al (US Patent No. 11,816,122 B1),
rejections of claims 2 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Showalter (US Pub. No. 20110270779 A1),
rejections of claims 4, 7, 24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Barrow et al (US Pub. No. 20170242873 A1),
rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Den Herder et al (US Pub. No. 20140074733 A1), and
rejections of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Kelle et al (US Pub. No. 20100040260 A1)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate double patenting rejection over US Patent No. 11,861,880. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws double patenting rejection.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2A – Prong One contending that the claims do not recite a judicial exception, but are directed to computer vision property evaluation, which is not a commercial or legal interaction, personal behavior or relationships, marketing or sales activity, personal behavior, or interactions between people [remarks page 10]. Examiner respectfully disagrees in as much as the claims are directed to determining a condition score for a property which is a fundamental economic principle grouped under a method of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility contending that “The claims are not directed to a mental process” and “The claims are not directed to a mathematical concept”. [remarks pages 10-12]. These arguments are moot in view of Examiner’s response above.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2A- Prong Two of contending that “The claims as a whole, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application” [remarks page 12]. Applicant’s detailed arguments contend that the presently claimed systems and methods improve the problem of traditional property condition metrics which are qualitative and/or subjective [remarks page 13] – i.e. the independent claims now recite “determining an objective condition score”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, there is no improvement to technology and there is no recitation of a computerized device.
Applicant further argues subject matter eligibility contending that the amended claims “provide an improvement to the field of computer vision and property condition analysis that enables objective analysis of subjective property attributes to produce more accurate property condition scores or metrics” [remarks page 14]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As with determining a practical application to an abstract idea, types of limitations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) – subject matter eligibility under Step 2B - include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b),
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c),
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Further, limitations also indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention does not contain any of these “types” of aforementioned limitations.
Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f),
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g),
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h),
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo.
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention merely appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See revised 101 rejections in view of the claim amendments and the current MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Requirements.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application, filed on 01 November 2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2022/ 036200, with an International Filing Date: 06 July 2022. PCT/US2022/036200 claims priority from provisional application 63/218,858, filed on 06 July 2021. PCT/US2022/036200 claims priority from provisional application 63/249,200, filed on 28 September 2021. Accordingly, this application is given priority from 06 July 2021.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 13, clauses such as “an attribute model of the set of attribute models is trained using different training data from the condition scoring model” are merely statements of intended use in that “being trained” is not explicitly claiming “training an attribute model of the set of attribute models using different training data from the condition scoring model”. Such terminology will be given limited patentable weight. Similar phrasing will be interpreted accordingly.
A recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" clauses, or
(D) "whereby" clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because term “objective” as in “an objective condition score” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. As such, the term “objective” is given limited patentable weight.
Claim 10 is objected to because the phrase “the objective condition comprises” should be written” the objective condition score comprises”. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 21-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the term “objective” as in “an objective condition score” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “objective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of examination, the term “objective” will be interpreted to be not further limiting. Correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 5-13, 22, 23 and 25-27 are rejected by way of dependency on a rejected independent claim.
The art rejections below are in view of the 112(b) rejections stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 21-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-3 and 5-13 are directed to a “method” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining a condition score which is a fundamental economic principle grouped under a method of organizing human activity.
in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p.p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019))). Claims recite:
determining a measurement depicting a property;
determining parcel data associated with the property;
extracting, using a segmentation model, a set of property components associated with the property from the measurement;
determining a set of attributes for the property, based on the set of property components and the parcel data, using a set of attribute models, wherein each attribute model of the set of attribute models includes a plurality of attention layers operable to focus on a property component of the set of property components,; and
determining an objective condition score for the property based on the set of attributes using a condition scoring model.
Limitations such as:
wherein the set of attributes comprises a visual condition of at least one of a roof, a pool, or yard debris
are merely a description of data and does not impose any meaningful limit on the implementation of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application [R-07.2022]), the additional elements of the claim such as a segmentation model and a set of attribute models may represent the use of a computer technology to perform an abstract idea, but do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than apply a computerized system to the method steps corresponding to automating the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022]), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computerized instructions include extracting, using a segmentation model and using a set of attribute models are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as “possibly” performing generic computer functions - i.e. no computerized components are recited - routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of determining a condition score using computer technology.
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3 and 5-13 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 2, 3 and 5-13 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of determining a score.
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
In the instant case, claims 21-23 and 25-27 are directed to a "system" which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as at least one memory and at least one processor represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of "collecting information and analyzing the information".
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of determining a condition score using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22, 23 and 25-27 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 22-27 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of determining a condition score.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 21, 23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US Patent No. 11,816,122 B1) in view of Hayward (US Pub. No. 20150371347 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, He teaches systems and methods for property valuation that implement a complex series of machine learning-based workflows for data processing, property valuation, and error detection [col. 1 lines 45-50]. He teaches:
determining a measurement depicting a property – [col. 3 lines 13-41} “quality and condition score”;
determining parcel data associated with the property – [col. 5 lines 25-33] “public record data”, and [col. 6 lines 28-47] “public and private record data”;
extracting, using a segmentation model, a set of property components associated with the property from the measurement - [col. 13 lines 62-67], [col. 15 lines 52-67];
determining a set of attributes for the property, based on the set of property components and the parcel data, using a set of attribute models – [col. 12 lines 12-23], [col. 20 line 65-col. 21 line 26]; and
determining an objective condition score for the property based on the set of attributes using a condition scoring model - [col. 20 line 65-col. 21 line 26].
He does not explicitly disclose:
each attribute model of the set of attribute models as including a plurality of attention layers operable to focus on a property component of the set of property components, wherein the set of attributes comprises a visual condition of at least one of a roof, a pool, or yard debris
However, Hayward teaches method for generating a dynamic recommendation based on changes in environment around a property area [0004]. The method comprises acquiring property data associated with a property area from a data source, and extracting a first property attribute data from the property data acquired. He teaches a centralized computing environment comprising a data acquisition unit configured to acquire property data for a property from different types of third-party data sources [0051]. He teaches modeling using property attributes [0177]
Hayward teaches a property score calculator unit which determines a home structural attributes index for a property by analyzing property data for the property (e.g., a dataset comprising property attributes for the property, user responses to questions relating to the property, etc.) to identify data points that indicate potential presence of structures at the property [0135]. Examples of data points that indicate potential presence of structures at the property may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) forced air heating or cooling systems, (b) cooling with air-conditioning, evaporative cooling or natural ventilation, (c) mechanical ventilation, (d) exhaust fans in kitchen or bathrooms, (e) attic, with or without conditioned air, (f) crawlspace, ventilated or conditioned air, with or without a moisture barrier, (g) fireplace, (h) wall to wall carpeting, and extent of coverage, (i) number of rooms, assists in identifying occupancy, (j) stucco cladding, whether natural or synthetic materials, (k) age of the property identifies most likely types of structure, materials, and systems which have historically changed over time, (l) landscaping including slope and vegetation, (m) roof type and slope, such as flat, steep, slight, tile, shingles of asphalt or wood or tile, (n) water removal such as gutters and downspouts, (o) visual conditions of property, such as recent or deferred maintenance, and (p) complex additions to the main building. Examples of data points that indicate potential amplifications factors for the home structural attributes index for the property may include, but are not limited to, the following: old construction, conditions signaling poor maintenance of the property, high property occupancy with inadequate ventilation, over a damp crawlspace [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He’s disclosure to include modeling using property attributes with visual conditions of property as taught by Hayward since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 3 and 23, He teaches an attribute model of the set as determining the respective attribute based on features extracted from the set of property components - [col. 17 lines 13-35].
Regarding claims 5 and 25, He teaches determining an explainability description associated with the objective condition score based on the set of attributes – [col. 16 lines 54-67] “the quality and condition of a property”.
Regarding claims 6 and 26, He teaches the objective condition score being used as an input to an automated valuation model – [col. 6 lines 4-18] and [col. 16 lines 54-67].
Regarding claim 8, He teaches the measurement as comprising remote exterior imagery – [col. 17 lines 36-55].
Regarding claim 9, He teaches:
determining the set of attributes as comprising determining a segmented measurement from the measurement based on the parcel data – [col. 13 lines 62-67], [col. 15 lines 52-67] and [col. 16 lines 15-40], and
an attribute model of the set of attribute models as determining a value for an attribute of the set of attributes based on the segmented measurement – [col. 16 lines 41-53] and [col. 20 lines 24-64].
Regarding claim 10, He teaches the condition scoring model as comprising a first submodel and a second submodel, wherein determining the objective condition “score” comprises:
determining the objective condition score using the first submodel when the set of attributes satisfies a set of conditions associated with the objective condition score – [col. 1 line 66-col. 2 line 8], [col. 2 line 63-col. 4 line 7] and [col. 10 lines 43-58]; and
calculating the objective condition score using the second submodel when the set of attributes does not satisfy the set of conditions - [col. 1 line 66-col. 2 line 8], [col. 2 line 63-col. 4 line 7] and [col. 10 lines 43-58];.
Regarding claim 13, He teaches an attribute model of the set of attribute models being trained using different training data from the condition scoring model – [col. 9 lines 10-32].
Claims 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Hayward, in further view of Showalter (US Pub. No. 20110270779 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, neither He nor Hayward explicitly discloses determining a description vector based on a property description using a separate model, wherein the objective condition score is further determined based on the description vector using the condition scoring model.
However, Showalter teaches systems, methods, instructions, and computer readable media using data from various sources and data analytics to optimize or predict value for a real estate loan [0004]. Showalter teaches borrower behavior being learned from previous behavior of others and mapped to a predictive model. Showalter uses machine learning and to classify a borrower into many classes of borrower [Id.]. Showalter teaches metrics and other values input into the model as a feature vector [0096]. Component scores, model development factors and metrics are calculated from metrics. Scores include whether a borrower has defaulted, whether a borrower has made prepayments, or other indicators of status. The model development factors are information vectors obtained from the reduction of borrower, property and product information into a set of vectors [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He’s disclosure to include property and product information into a set of vectors used in predictive model as taught by Showalter because it allows for large amounts of data learned from previous behavior to be mapped into a predictive model - Showalter [0004].
Claims 7 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Hayward, in further view of Barrow et al (US Pub. No. 20170242873 A1).
Regarding claim 7 and 27, neither He nor Hayward explicitly discloses the set of attributes as comprising a paved surface condition.
However, Barrow teaches systems and methods to create and maintain an integrated centralized property database containing all information, including a full time history, associated with any given point on the earth [0006]. Barrow teaches real property characteristic data as including soil conditions such as farmland, rocky, marsh, stream, lake, forest, meadow, undeveloped land and paved land [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He’s disclosure to include soil conditions for undeveloped land and paved land as taught by Barrow because such data is useful in identifying and locating information related to a particular parcel (of land) that may not be in official county tax base or other government records - Barrow [0005].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Hayward, in further view of Den Herder et al (US Pub. No. 20140074733 A1).
Regarding claim 11, neither He nor Hayward explicitly discloses the first submodel as comprising a ruleset model or a heuristics model, and the second submodel as comprising a classification model or a regression model.
However, Den Herder teaches an application for a tablet, a smartphone, a laptop, or a similar device that utilizes imaging technology and numerous data sources to provide an assessment of a subject property [0014]. The application may also provide value and appraisal history for the subject property based on collected past value and valuation data and provide valuation using said comparable properties in a regression model [0018]. Den Herder teaches a regression module which includes program code for modeling the accessed property data, according to a heuristic mathematical construct [0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He’s disclosure to include a regression model and a heuristic mathematical construct as taught by Den Herder because it is used with a sophisticated regimented procedure of implementing a home inspection in accordance with photographs that may be evaluated at a later time without the evaluator's physical presence at a subject property - Den Herder [0005].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Hayward, in further view of Kelle et al (US Pub. No. 20100040260 A1).
Regarding claim 12, neither He nor Hayward explicitly discloses the measurement as comprising a color image.
However, Kelle teaches a remote sensing and probabilistic sampling based method for determining the carbon dioxide volume of a forest [0004]. The method comprises processing remote sensing data which is indicative of tree attribute information; defining a sampling frame within the remote sensing data; determining a field plot corresponding to said sampling frame and collecting field plot data therefrom, said field plot data comprising actual tree attribute information; creating a regression formula using the correlated tree match database and the remote sensing data from the sampling frame; generating a correlated model using the regression formula; applying the correlated model to all remote sensing data to create an accurate forest inventory; and determining the probabilistic carbon dioxide volume per acre of the forest [Id.]. Kelle teaches LiDAR imagery and the locations measured in the field and using a tree recognition algorithm to detect objects and calculating tree polygons attributes [0055]-[0057]. Kelle teaches using color imagery [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He’s disclosure to include colors as a form of measurement as taught by Kelle since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Griffin et al: “AUTOMATED ASSESSMENT”, (US Pub. No. 20160180467 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights